2017 (11) TMI 463 - HC - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - discharge the onus cast upon of proving identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of transaction - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that - Tribunal correctly held that Primary burden lies on the assessee has been discharged by filing the requisite evidences before the Assessing Officer and shifted on the Assessing Officer to disprove the cash creditors transactions are not genuine or bogus. The share application money was received by the appellant and subsequently returned though banking channel. In case of 7 companies, the notices were served on it on given addresses. There is no evidence directly or indirectly with the Assessing Officer that the assessee had routed undisclosed money in the guise of share application money or loan. DR sargument have also not convinced us that these parties were in accommodation entries in form of loan and share application money after charging certain commission as such no survey/search has been carried out on the creditors to prove that these companies are habitual to provide loan/share application money even there is no evidence with the ld DR for making such allegation during the course of written submissions. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to Tribunal's judgment and order regarding addition under section 68 of the IT Act.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the Tribunal's decision dismissing the department's appeal. The High Court framed the question of law related to the deletion of an addition of Rs. 2.16 crore under section 68 of the IT Act. The Tribunal observed discrepancies in the assessment proceedings where the Assessing Officer heavily relied on reports without informing the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The Assessing Officer's failure to consider evidence provided by the assessee, including affidavits, PAN numbers, and balance sheets, was noted. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of creditors. The primary burden on the assessee was met, shifting the onus to the Assessing Officer to disprove the transactions. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) based on the evidence presented and case laws cited, rejecting the department's arguments.

The Tribunal's decision favored the assessee, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer failed to provide conclusive evidence that the cash creditors were not genuine. The Tribunal highlighted that it was not mandatory to prove the source of source under section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal found no evidence suggesting the assessee had routed undisclosed money through share application money or loans. The Tribunal dismissed the department's arguments of accommodation entries without substantial proof or evidence. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) based on the facts and circumstances presented, concluding in favor of the assessee and against the department. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision.

In conclusion, the High Court analyzed the issues raised by the appellant challenging the Tribunal's judgment regarding the addition under section 68 of the IT Act. The detailed examination of the assessment proceedings, evidence provided by the assessee, and the burden of proof highlighted the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's ruling, emphasizing the lack of conclusive evidence against the genuineness of cash creditors and dismissing the department's arguments of accommodation entries without substantial backing. The judgment ultimately favored the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.